Zoning Board of Appeals November 20, 2018 Minutes

Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals in attendance by roll call were:

Chairman Kenneth Coirin — here
Douglas Purcell — here
Mike Frasier — absent
Frank Malagisi — here
Kathleen Ellerby — here
D Peter Welker — absent

Members of the public in attendance: Charles Schwartz, David Fazzari, Megan Affrunti, John Garger, Carol Mark, Matthew Paton.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin opened the public hearing at 7:00pm.

Douglas Purcell: I’ll make a motion to waive the reading of the minutes from the October 23^rd and the November 20^th Zoning Board of Appeals meetings and accept them as they are currently published.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: I’ll second that.

All were in favor.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: The Zoning Board hearings are a two part. The first is for the public. Then, we’ll close that and we’ll go into a second part of the meeting and that’s just for the Board.

Application Number: Z2018-15

Owner: David Fazzari 367 3^rd Street #202 Jersey City NJ 07302 of the property located at: 453 State Highway 10 in the Town of Caroga and identified as parcel #12.19-2-5 for a variance to the Town of Caroga Zoning Ordinance which is in violation of Article 4 Sections 4.050 and 4.010 of said code.

Owner Desires to: build a new single family dwelling entirely on its own parcel.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: If Mr. Fazzari will just give us an overview of what you want to do.

David Fazzari approached the board.

David Fazzari: Sure. So, I also brought a larger survey because I know the 8.5 by 11 ones are hard to read, so you probably want to see that. And also, I’ve gotten a letter of support from one of the people in the neighborhood. [inaudible]

Douglas Purcell: Yes. I’ll take that and give it to the secretary when we get to that portion.

David Fazzari: So.

Douglas Purcell: I’m just a little curious.

David Fazzari: So, you know, there’s a — the highway's there and the other place on that side. The red dotted line is the current structure. And, then the solid black line is the proposed structure.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: OK.

Douglas Purcell: Alright.

David Fazzari: So, yes, the property's been in our family for close to 70 years. It’s a place that we hope to visit, but it’s starting to show its age, so we’re wanting to upgrade it and there will be two small changes to the foot print that we’re proposing. One is just slightly increasing it just to allow for winter installation so we can use it year-around. Current structure has to be winterized and shut down. And the other is centering the property to rectify, you know, concerns of the adjacent property owners. There’s they. So, that it’s no longer on the property line. In terms of nonconformity, the existing structure or use nonconforming, regards the side setbacks, so, variance wouldn’t change that. Centering the cabin would allow the nonconformity to be split evenly on both sides. And, then the character of the property would be almost identical except for the small changes I mentioned. Plus, it would be more attractive, safer. And then, the front and back setbacks would still be conforming with the new structure. And, you know, the benefits of approving the variance would be that a structure would be more attractive -- would be more safe. It would be up to modern standards. It would be more valuable and have a, you know, bring in more tax revenue for the town. As mentioned before, the addressing the concern of one of our neighbors about the property line. It would also have — on the front side now — an entrance, so you could enter from the road side — just make it more convenient so we’re not going to have to walk around and pass through people’s houses to get in every time we’re going in and out. And just the history that we — since we’ve been here for so long — from the, like, third or forth generation and, you know, we’re motivated to stay there and keep the property and — sort of — maintain the character of the neighborhood. And, so, you know, those are the reasons that we’re asking for the variance.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: OK. Alright. Is there any correspondence on this?

The secretary had not received any correspondence. David Fazzari brought a letter from Paul Klimuc to the Board.

Douglas Purcell: I actually thought I saw that [letter from Paul Klimuc] in the package that we got. The letter form Paul Klimuc, legal owner 447 State Highway 10 was read into the record. In summary, Mr. Klimuc stated “I have no objections and fully support ...”.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: Would anybody like to speak to this? Yes.

John Garger: I’m John Garger. I own the property to the south of the Fazzari’s. We have three separate lots right there. I have a house on the center lot and the lot directly next to the Fazzari’s is a building lot. I’m concerned that the 24 inch setback that they have off the line that the current structure is not enough. We are completely sympathetic to the Fazzari’s attachment to the property. We’re more than willing for a reasonable setback. I mentioned to David [Fazzari] before that the normal 12 foot nonconforming [sic] setback — we would — six foot would be fine with us. We would support them a hundred percent. Now, the current structure that is there is basically a log canopy over an existing trailer. The trailer is inside this — this structure. And, when they did the enclosure around it we were all supportive because it just made everything better. And, that’s why we never contested the encroachment of their up near the road. We're just concerned with keeping the integrity of our building lot. We don’t want a 24 inch setback to come back to bite us down the road somewhere when we plan to do something on that lot. And, I would like to mention that the existing footprint — they’ve only been paying taxes on a manufactured home. And, a lot of this stuff — we researched the folder when Mr. Sullivan and Linda Gilbert — back in — what, about two years ago?

Carol Mark: April 2016.

John Garger: April 2016. So, we checked to see what permits were in the folder. And, there were no permits in the folder at that time. At that time, the Fazzari’s had Sal Ferlazzo [attorney, also Town of Caroga attorney] contacts us that he was retained by the Fazzari’s. We let Mr. Ferlazzo know that we had looked into it. We told him the same thing. We were — no problem with a reasonable setback and then, later, he recused himself, I guess, from being involved because he was still Town [of Caroga] attorney at the time. So, all we’re looking — we want no controversy. We want to support the Fazzari’s. We know they love that property. But, we just want to protect our line there and we’re willing to negotiate anything that’s reasonable.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: OK. Thank you. Mr. Paton?

Matthew Paton: Same thing with me. I mean, I believe the steps are about three, three and a half feet from my line. And, I’m not taking anything away from them, but, just — I don’t want it to — if they’re talking about centering it — I mean that, that — if they’re 24 inch, I think they’re going to come a little more my way. I just don’t want to take away from the integrity of my lot. I’ve only got a quarter acre, so it’s not — as far as the building, I don’t know where the building is going to end up being or how many feet you can — the usual setback is, what, ten feet normally? I mean, there are three, three and half feet — the steps are — the wall, so, it is a build-over of the trailer. I mean, and I’m not sure about the permits — that they had permits at the time when they built over the — but, I’m not against it. I just — I don’t want them to be any closer to my lot, because they’re only three feet from my line right now, so, that’s it.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: OK. Thank you. Anything else?

Charles Schwartz: Can I just briefly? I'm the attorney for David [Fazzari]. And I — you guys know that your code — your statutes. And, I don’t presume to tell you anything that you don’t already know, but I think it is important to point out when you are talking about an area variance, you’re asking for a variance from your zoning rules for density purposes. That’s what your variance — that’s what your zoning code is for — mostly to prevent density. An area variance is particularly tied into that. So, your code really has it pretty square on foot. What it says that overall, what your board needs to look at is whether the benefit to be conveyed to my client — meaning the area variance — is outweighed by the detriment to the health, welfare, or safety of the community. And, if you look this on its face, the small little variance that he’s asking for has — will not effect the health, the welfare, or the safety of the community. It’s in character with the neighborhood. And, it actually moves the existing parcel — the nonconforming use — from the property line, off the property line, to two and a half, three foot off. So, in that fashion, it’s actually an improvement. No, it’s not the twelve foot, but it’s an improvement of what is there right now. Overall, when you look at the density of the entire parcel — which is a pretty good sized parcel — his variance — he’s asking for, is probably less than one percent. So, he’s going to make that parcel, overall, potentially less than one percent more dense. So, I just wanted to point those things out. I know you can see those. I don’t presume to tell you anything about your businesses. I respectfully submit that. And, thank you.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: Yes?

John Garger: You know, Fazzari’s have a very deep lot, just like my lot is next door. And, it would be — it wouldn’t lose any square footage if they would just make it — put the extra feet on either end of the house going to the lake and back towards the road. They could actually end up with more square footage in their house and it would benefit everybody.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: Alright. If there’s nothing further, then we’ll close the public portion and go into the board’s session.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin closed the public session at 7:12 pm.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: I’ve got a question for you. On this diagram that you’ve given me here, you’ve got a driveway marked.

David Fazzari: Right.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: Is that the one that you presently have been using, or?

David Fazzari: Yeah. For my whole life, we’ve been using it, so, I’m in my forties, so, that would be forty years.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: OK. And then, I have two dotted lines here and I'm guessing that's where you are going to move the driveway over to?

David Fazzari: Ah, let’s see.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: [multiple simultaneous conversations for the next minute] This is obviously on Paton's property. This driveway going in here?

David Fazzari: So, that’s where we would park, once the entrance is on the front of the house instead of the side. And, there’s space here to park the car, so we wouldn’t need to use that anymore.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: OK.

Frank Malagisi: Are you moving the driveway?

David Fazzari: No, we just wouldn't need to use it anymore.

Frank Malagisi: You’re just going to abandon the driveway?

Matthew Paton: That’s actually my driveway.

David Fazzari: Right. So, we’ve been using it.

Frank Malagisi: But, it’s a shared driveway?

Matthew Paton: It’s not really shared, but they’ve been using for years, but it is actually only like twelve inches into it. The rest is all mine. There is that [inaudible]

David Fazzari: My understanding is that my grandfather and his father came to an agreement, probably 50 — 60 years ago. And, until the last five years roughly, we’ve been the only people who have been parking there. And, regardless, we feel that this new structure will resolve that issue. So, even though we have been using it, we won’t need to, once the new structure is there. Park where the front door is.

Kathleen Ellerby: So, this structure is over the top of a mobile home type thing. Are you removing the whole mobile home?

David Fazzari: Yes.

Kathleen Ellerby: And the porch and the deck is staying?

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: The whole thing’s going.

David Fazzari: Everything has to be taken out, so the deck will have to be rebuilt. But, it will be rebuilt to modern code.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: On the same footprint that’s existing?

Douglas Purcell: Correct.

John Garger: I have one more question: doesn’t — shouldn’t the site plan also include the location of the septic?

Frank Malagisi: Well, that was my next question. [multiple simultaneous speakers] Where are you planning to put your septic?

David Fazzari: I don’t know exactly where the septic is now, so I don’t know. I wouldn’t think that we’re changing the septic, to my knowledge. But, it’s — we still have the responsibility of maintaining it somewheres, that’s for sure.

Frank Malagisi: Well, the reason why I ask, is if you are going to be parking on your property, that could be where your septic is.

David Fazzari: Oh, sorry. It’s in the — I do know it is in the front of the — sorry — back — the lake side, so.

Frank Malagisi: So, it’s going towards — it’s in the front of the structure, going towards the water?

David Fazzari: Correct.

John Garger: I believe it’s under the existing deck that’s there.

Frank Malagisi: Well, they’re going to find it.

Douglas Purcell: I was curious if you’ve given any consideration to any other design — make that deeper instead of so wide? So, that it did fit the property better? Because, as I point out, the property is quite deep. It would seem that you would have room to go back toward the road without coming into an encroachment of the setback for the road.

Kathleen Ellerby: Back towards the lake even.

Douglas Purcell: [multiple simultaneous speakers] Well, septic issues. Correct.

David Fazzari: We start to run into issues with the septic and with where our well would go and so it would be hard as it is and it’s going to be hard to move those things in a way that will sort of be in line with the code. The more that it stretches from the road to the lake, the harder it’s going to be to place those other things and places that don’t effect the lake and are far enough from the road, etc.

Charles Schwartz: If you move towards the lake you have septic issue. If you move toward the road, then you possibly, potentially have a problem with your front. The setback needs to be what, sixty foot from the middle of the road? So, it becomes problematic.

John Garger: Probably, about fifteen years ago, they built a shed that’s on the road side of the existing structure. That’s there right now. And I know at that time Mr. Walrath [Code Enforcement Officer] was checking on it. And, he measured off my line and he measured off the road side at the time. And that’s the shed that’s on the road side of the structure.

Frank Malagisi: OK. So, what’s comfortable for you for sideline setback?

John Garger: I would — from what Mr. Duesler told us — it’s twelve foot for a nonconforming lot. I would be happy to split the difference at six feet.

Frank Malagisi: So, you’re happy at six feet? Mr. Paton, what’s?

Matthew Paton: That’s about what I would. But to come over that far, he’s only three feet from my line now.

Frank Malagisi: So, we’re kind of like splitting [multiple simultaneous speakers].

John Garger: Will there be stairs on that side?

Matthew Paton: If they take away the entrance on that side and put it in the front, it would just be the wall of the cabin or whatever.

Frank Malagisi: Are you willing to kind of like meet these guys at that six foot mark?

David Fazzari: So, it’s between me and my sisters as well since we’re co-owners. So, I can’t make any changes personally. And I know there’s reluctance to change it in part because of wanting to sort of recreate the building and structure that we had growing up as a family. Trying to maintain that integrity.

Frank Malagisi: I get it, but, I'm trying to avoid conflict here.

John Garger: Right.

Kathleen Ellerby: Because by severing it, you’re taking from his side…

John Garger: The main structure, when he was growing up, it was actually the mobile home that’s in the inside that structure.

Frank Malagisi: I know, but that was considered the camp at the time.

Carol Mark: We want to work with everybody though. I just hate to think that being good neighbors and not saying anything when the log siding went up around it is now going to haunt us, because a new structure is going to come so close to the line.

Frank Malagisi: Anything at this point is better for you because it is over the line.

John Garger: It’s actually over the line.

Carol Mark: That’s absolutely true.

John Garger: How are they even going to dig a foundation if they’re only 24 inches off the line?

Frank Malagisi: No, No. I'm trying to absorb it all. I’m trying to create a discussion here between the property owners without creating any disturbance and see if we could work through the process. If you could get your six feet, if you could go a little bit wider, that would be the perfect for your rebuild.

David Fazzari: So, yeah, it’s not...

Frank Malagisi: Because we’re still going to make a decision. If it’s twelve feet, it is still nonconforming at that point, if it goes to six feet. So, we’re splitting hairs is what I’m trying to say. I mean, it is a noble gesture for you to take it off the lines, but we need to get to the six foot line. That’s what I’m asking.

David Fazzari: That, I'm not clear on that, because it is a decision between…

Frank Malagisi: Six feet off each line, so you’d have to redesign your structure.

Douglas Purcell: I don't believe, based on what he's said, that he’s in a position where he can make any adjustments to the variance requested — he’s submitted, given the fact that he’s got co-owners. So, I think we need to look at the application as submitted, go through the criteria and reach a conclusion.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: I think you're right.

Douglas Purcell: You can try and negotiate with him all you want, but he’s not in a position where he can negotiate.

Frank Malagisi: OK.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: He can’t make the decision.

Douglas Purcell: Unless anybody else has any other questions.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: I don’t.

Douglas Purcell: And, I’m done.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: The Zoning Board of Appeals, in the granting of an area variance, shall grant the minimum variance that it shall deem necessary and adequate and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and health, safety, and welfare of the community. There are five criteria. The first is whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this variance.

Douglas Purcell: Well, I think that the property owners on either side have indicated that they feel that there will be a detriment.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: So, I think we’re saying “yes” on that one.

All Board members said, “Yes.”

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: Secondly, whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance.

All Board members said, “No.”

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: Thirdly, whether the requested area variance is substantial.

All board members said, “Yes.”

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: Fourthly, whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.

All board members said, “No.”

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: Fifthly, whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.

All board members said, “No.”

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: It’s constrained by the size of the lot. Alright. I'll entertain a motion on this.

Douglas Purcell: I'm going to make the motion that we deny the variance application Z2018-15 on the grounds that it is significant and because of the impact on each of its neighbors’ sidelines.

Kathleen Ellerby: I’ll second it.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: Alright. A “yes” vote will deny the variance. A “no” vote will approve it. Secretary, please call the roll:

Roll call vote:

Douglas Purcell: Yes.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: Yes.

Frank Malagisi: Yes.

Kathleen Ellerby: Yes.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: OK. We've denied it unfortunately, but I think the concerns of the neighbors on both sides are pretty strong here. So, if you could talk with your other two co-owners and come back with a revised plan, I think that would be a benefit to all of us.

Douglas Purcell: And, I would strongly recommend that on the revised plan you try to show proposed wells and septic, so that we can have an appreciation for the difficulties that you’re currently facing.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: Yes, that might help. Alright. That’s it.

Douglas Purcell: We probably have two other piece of business that we need to conduct.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: OK.

Douglas Purcell: If I recall correctly, all of us where copied on an email from Linda [Gilbert, Town Clerk] concerning the use variance decision on I Ting’s property [Z2018-14, 2018-11-20], with an indication that, by law, we are to notify and work with the [Fulton] County Planning Board, regarding that decision for them — basically, from what I can see — to review it the same as the Adirondack Park Agency does. That came out Monday, Tuesday? It was something like that. You didn’t get it?

The email from Linda Gilbert to the ZBA was actually 24 hours earlier. It was dated Wednesday, November 28, 2018 4:56 PM Eastern Standard Time.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: No. That’s news to me.

Kathleen Ellerby: I haven’t seen it.

The Board discussed the location of any Fulton County Highways relative to the I Ting parcel in Caroga.

Douglas Purcell: Linda [Gilbert, Town Clerk] should be directed to send the letter to Fulton County Planning Board for final review and approval of our decision. What I found interesting is that this never came up when we approved the one on Beach Ridge [Road, County Highway 137] several years ago. And, it never came up when we did the one on London Bridge Road [County Highway 111], which happens to be [multiple simultaneous speakers]. And, to my knowledge, we have done this at least three times where we should have. I’m glad it has been brought to our attention.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: Yes.

Douglas Purcell: The second one, we got an email today, forwarded to us by Linda [Gilbert, Town Clerk] from Maddalone asking if we were meeting on the 18^th, which is his 30 days from our last meeting. Technically, it is not our thirty days from our last meeting.

Kathleen Ellerby: It was the 20^th.

Douglas Purcell: It was the 20^th. Thirty days would make it the 20^th of December. I have a conflict and, while we said 30 days notice to the other property owner, we knew it was going to take some time and we’ve given him until January 1^st. The question that Linda [Gilbert, Town Clerk] is asking us, you and I, is are we setting the meeting in December — which, I think the answer is no.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: No.

Douglas Purcell: What I don’t know is if we want to try and set a meeting for January 8, Tuesday 7PM.

The Board set a date for January 8, 7PM.

Douglas Purcell: Now, I’ll make a motion to adjourn.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: I’ll second that.

All were in favor.

The meeting adjourned at 7:31 pm.

Respectfully submitted James McMartin Long Town of Caroga Deputy Supervisor, acting as Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary

Copyright © James McMartin Long 2017–2024